So has the media ever admitted it was wrong. Or any of the critics in congress. If not, than maybe they can be accused of war-mongering now. Or maybe Obama can be accused of war-mongering.Don't tell me, Iran suddenly restarted it's nuclear program almost the moment Obama took office. So it's perfectly fine for Obama and the media to talk tough but Bush was war mongering.Here is a 2009 story about Iran being censured at the U.N.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iran-censured-u-n-nuclear-meeting-tehran-blasts-iaea-vows-resist-threats-article-1.417607. All of a sudden, in the first year of Obama's presidency, Iran nuclear program is a serious issue that has to be dealt with.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/156/26473.htmlhttp://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=396174http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/01/iran.geneva.nuclear/index.html?iref=24hourshttp://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/opinion/cronin-iran-nuclear-threat/http://edition.cnn.hu/2009/POLITICS/05/19/mideast.netanyahu.dc/index.html?iref=newssearchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piSYZHJG-YMhttp://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/why-did-a-cnn-anchor-just-call-iran-nuclear-deal-a-train-wreck/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/iran.nie/http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/world/meast/irans-nuclear-capabilities-fast-factshttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/07/siu.01.htmlhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/06/ec.01.htmlCheck this from July 2010 CNN, Campbell BrownPOLLAK: I would suspect not, although this is one of those issues where there is a huge amount of private discussion that goes on, although it was very interesting to see today in a story that just came out the ambassador of to the UAE came out and openly advocated for military attacks on the Iranian nuclear program.(Wait a minute! I thought only Bush wanted attacks on Iran so he could increase his popularity.)So, I think there is a developing consensus that something needs to be done and that it would be very, very bad if the Iranians went nuclear. BROWN: Peter? BEINART: I agree with Noah. I don't think the two leaders are fundamentally on the same page. They may both be supportive of sanctions, but when push comes to shove, I think the Israelis may really want the U.S. to take military action. And I think most of what we have seen from the Obama administration, and, in fact, even importantly, from the U.S. military, which seems very reluctant to get involved in a third war in the Middle East, is that the United States, as much as the U.S. wants to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, does not have an appetite for war with Iran. BROWN: Or capability, it seems, at the moment. It gets more interesting. I found more. Just what did Bush say that was so controvesial?Here is a snippet'The Bush administration has spent years warning that Iran's development of nuclear power plants and enriched uranium masked an effort to produce an atomic bomb. But in a reversal of a 2005 report, the National Intelligence Estimate released Monday concluded that Iran suspended nuclear weapons work in late 2003 and was unlikely to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb until at least 2010.' At least 2010 means if they re-started their nuclear program immediately after the period the NIE said they suspended their program through. So what do you make of this from september of 2009:'The United States wants Iran to provide international inspectors with full access to a newly disclosed underground uranium enrichment plant that Obama administration officials say is both illegal and probably intended for developing weapons'.Didn't the NIE say that Iran suspended it's program in 2003. Yes - But that information, intelligence said, was only good through July of 2007. After that they may have re-started their program. However you could make the same arguement for any rhetoric that Bush may have delivered such as the one below.I guess this is Bush's war-mongering statement: "If your interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make nuclear weapons." Sounds like he's concerned about Iran going nuclear, not unlike Obama and the main stream media starting in 2009.More from Biden: "Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03?" He admitted he was told. The key their is tentative. Actually, according to Dana Perino, Bush was given information that Iran might have halted their nuclear program in 2003 but they were not sure yet. Even once he received the information it still remained a fact that although the report claims to have high confidence in it's findings it is not reported as a certainty. Furthermore Iran could start-up their nuclear program at any time.Here are the major judgements of the Dec 2007 NIE report

I discovered this from ISIS(Institute for Science and International Security)' The 2007 NIE judged with moderate confidence that a restart had not happened as of mid-2007. It should be noted that this assessment about a restart was rejected by key European allies and Israel, which all assessed that Iran was likely continuing to develop its nuclear weaponization capabilities and that its nuclear weapons program likely existed after 2003.The only conclusion we can draw is that the mainstream press, particularly CNN was overly eager to attack President Bush for being a war-monger most likely done for the pure political purpose helping Democrats. There is simply no plausible explanation for why they killed Bush for being overly concerned about Iran gaining nuclear weapons and then suddenly once Obama becomes president start showing great concerns themselves along with Obama. I have done some research and I have not been able to find any actual quotes from Bush saying that Iran was eminently about to a obtain nuclear weapons.